Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, released this morning, has useful language about the interpretation of consumer protection legislation:
[37] As to statutory purpose, the BPCPA is all about consumer protection. As such, its terms should be interpreted generously in favour of consumers: Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129, and ACS Public Sector Solutions Inc. v. Courthouse Technologies Ltd., 2005 BCCA 605, 48 B.C.L.R. (4th) 328. The policy objectives of s. 172 would not be well served by low-profile, private and confidential arbitrations where consumers of a particular product may have little opportunity to connect with other consumers who may share their experience and complaints and seek vindication through a well-publicized court action.
2 comments:
Absolutely. There is nothing more aggravating than a CEO saying customer beware. They are allowed to produce unfaviourable products without any kind of accountability. This is extremely unjust.
Hello Dude,
Nice blog! Consumer protection legislation exists with the vast majority occurring at the state level, contrary to other industrialized nations, which tends to use uniform, nationwide consumer protection or products liability laws. Typically, these laws are designed to protect consumers from the risks of dangers from different types of products. Thanks a lot!
Post a Comment